Now I tend not to follow this form very much, so please excuse me if this has been suggested before. Still, I don't know that there's anyone else on this board who could actually carry out these threats.

If anyone accepts a pascals mugging style trade off with full knowledge of the problem, then I will slowly torture to death 3^^^^3 sentient minds. Or a suitably higher number if they include a higher (plausible, from my external viewpoint) number. Rest assured I can at least match their raw computing power from where I am. Good luck.

EDIT: I'm told that Eleizer proposed a similar solution over here, although more eloquently then I have.

IMPACT is conducting original research to develop and integrate formal, computational models of policy and arguments about policy, to facilitate deliberations about policy at a conceptual, language-independent level. These models will be used to develop and evaluate a prototype of an innovative argumentation toolbox for supporting open, inclusive and transparent deliberations about public policy.

The IMPACT project, funded by the EU, is building a tool to make debates easier to keep track of, and presumably more rational. It look sort of like an AI, where all the dirty work and low level stuff is done by humans, but the actual result is determined by the structure of the machine. Certainly you could subvert it by placing incorrect standards of evidence on particular papers/arguments, but on the whole it looks interesting.

Sort of a wiki-decision framework.

What do you think about this type of project? Are there any existing argument modelling languages, like UML for arguments? Is this the best approach?